Brexiteers have warned they are ready to battle attempts to put the UK back in the EU (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been warned overturning Brexit will allow the European Union to “plunder” Britain and would be a direct betrayal of his voters in Makerfield. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of wanting to plunge Britain into a era of “tedious and divisive Brexit debates” as he prepares for a landmark UK-EU summit. There are fears the Labour leader will sign-up to “catastrophic” deals which will cost the country billions of pounds and make it harder to compete against European rivals. A call by France’s finance minister for Britain to rejoin the EU has triggered Brexiteer fury, with former Thatcher aide Lord Redwood warning the “EU sees us as Treasure Island, a place to plunder to help pay their excessive bills”.
Pressure will crank higher on europhile MPs on Monday when they debate a petition signed nearly 112,000 times which declares Brexit is “not working” and calls for the country to apply to rejoin the EU. Mr Burnham is preparing to lay out “different options” for Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe and has signalled this could include full membership.
Mrs Badenoch told the Express: “Andy Burnham wants to drag Britain back into the tedious and divisive Brexit debates of 10 years ago, when we should be moving forwards by using our freedoms to make the most of being outside the EU. Every time the Labour government has negotiated with the EU, they’ve given away too much and got too little in return. If Andy Burnham had any sense, instead of focusing on rewinding the clock to the EU debates he’d cut bad, anti-growth taxes like stamp duty and inheritance tax.”
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice fired a warning shot across Labour’s bows, saying: “If Andy Burnham wants a fight over rejoining the EU, Reform will give him one. He’s barely been in the job five minutes and he’s already trying to ignore the democratic will of the British people and drag us back into Brussels. He claims Brexit has done more harm than good, but the real harm being done to this country is by a Labour Government that can’t deliver growth, can’t control migration and now wants to hand more power back to Brussels.” He pledged his party would “never let this betrayal go unchallenged”.
Lord Frost was by Boris Johnson’s side in key moments in the Brexit dramas (Image: Getty)
Britain’s former chief Brexit Negotiator, Lord Frost, also sounded the alarm, claiming the cost of rejoining the EU could come to as much as £20billion. He said Labour’s attempt to “reset” relations with the EU “involves this country paying large sums to Brussels in return for the doubtful privilege of having them make our laws without asking us”.
French finance minister Roland Lescure’s invitation for the UK to “come back anytime” to the EU is the clearest sign yet that rejoining is back on the agenda. Economist Julian Jessop warned: “The so-called reset is the latest move towards rejoining the EU by stealth… In effect, Brussels is taking back control and sending us the bill.” Former Labour minister Baroness Hoey said that allowing “the EU any control over the UK” would be a “ridiculous move” when “France is in chaos and the entire EU is in a downward slope”.
Andy Burnham has put the UK’s future relationship with the EU on the agenda (Image: Getty)
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
John Longworth, chairman of the Independent Business Network, had similar concerns, stating: “It is no wonder the French are keen on our joining the EU; they want our money to help pay for their deficit and for us to take their regulations so we can’t compete.” Fred de Fossard of the Prosperity Institute claimed the EU is attempting to “get hold of billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money” when it faces a “fiscal crisis and long-term economic stagnation”. He said: “They want to undermine British competitiveness by increasing our energy costs, and they want Britain to bail out the EU which is crippled by debt after the pandemic and fund Europe’s bloated welfare states.”
The UK is expected to agree to a joint emissions trading scheme with the EU in the hope businesses will not will not face greater costs and more red tape. But Silvia Andreoletti of the Adam Smith Institute warned: “Signing up to costly EU schemes, especially when it comes to energy, would be catastrophic for the economy. The UK already has some of the highest energy prices in the developed world… While linking trading systems could reduce costs and bureaucracy for UK companies, it risks committing the country to more energy regulation than its economy can bear.”
Former Conservative Leader of the Commons Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg warned that the Prime Minister risked “cheating” the voters of Makerfield who sent him to Parliament in June. An estimated 65% of voters in the constituency backed Brexit in the 2016 referendum. In May, Mr Burnham declared that the “last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments” and warned that “Britain will be stuck in a permanent rut if we’re just constantly arguing and people are pulling away from each other”.
Cautioning the PM against going back into the EU, Sir Jacob said: “This would be disastrous for this nation. But it would also be stunningly undemocratic. It would be built on dishonesty… It certainly can’t be done on nine million votes that Labour got at the last election against the 17 million votes in the referendum. And it shouldn’t be done at all, because it is a cheat on Andy Burnham’s own electors.”
A Government spokesperson defended its dealings with the EU and its energy plans, saying: “We are building an ambitious, close relationship with the EU that will strengthen our economy and unlock good growth in every postcode. Linking our emissions trading systems will add up to £3.8billion a year to the economy in the long run and protect critical industries like steel and aluminium from a carbon tax on approximately £7billion in exports.” The Government insisted Mr Burnham will honour commitments in this Parliament not to rejoin the single market or the customs union or return to free movement of people. It claims his plan is to “move beyond division and build a national consensus around a practical relationship with Europe”.
ANDY BURNHAM WARNED OF BREXIT BETRAYAL IF HE LETS THE EUROPEAN UNION ‘PLUNDER’ BRITAIN
Andy Burnham has been drawn into a growing political debate over Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with critics warning that any move towards closer European integration could be portrayed as a betrayal of the promises made during the Brexit referendum. The controversy highlights the continuing divisions over sovereignty, trade, immigration and Britain’s place in Europe years after the country formally left the bloc.
The warning comes amid renewed discussion about whether the UK should seek a closer economic relationship with European countries. Supporters of stronger cooperation argue that Britain could benefit from improved trade arrangements, reduced barriers for businesses and closer diplomatic coordination. Critics, however, fear that closer ties could gradually weaken Britain’s ability to make independent decisions.
Burnham’s position in this debate matters because he is a prominent Labour politician whose views on Britain’s economic future could attract national attention. Yet the question is not simply whether he supports cooperation with Europe. It is what form that cooperation should take, what benefits it might deliver and whether it would respect the democratic decision made in the 2016 referendum.
The language of betrayal and accusations that the EU could ‘plunder’ Britain reflects the intensity of the political argument. But understanding the real implications requires looking beyond dramatic slogans and examining the choices facing the country.
Why Brexit remains a powerful political issue
Britain’s departure from the European Union was one of the most consequential political decisions in modern British history. The 2016 referendum exposed deep divisions over national sovereignty, economic opportunity, immigration and the country’s relationship with neighbouring states.
Those divisions did not disappear when the UK formally left the EU in January 2020 or when the transition period ended later that year.
For some Brexit supporters, leaving the bloc represented an opportunity to regain control over laws, borders and trade policy. They believed Britain should be able to set its own priorities without being constrained by European institutions.
Others argued that membership had provided economic advantages, influence over continental decisions and easier access to a major nearby market. They warned that leaving would create additional costs for businesses and complicate arrangements for workers, exporters and consumers.
Since Brexit, governments have had to manage the practical consequences of the new relationship. Businesses have adapted to new customs procedures and regulatory requirements, while politicians have continued to debate whether the existing arrangements deliver the promised benefits.
That background explains why proposals for closer relations with Europe can generate such strong reactions. Even limited cooperation may be interpreted differently by people who disagree about what Brexit was intended to achieve.
What does a closer relationship with the EU actually mean?
One difficulty in the debate is that ‘closer ties’ can describe several very different policies.
The UK could pursue practical agreements on trade, research, energy, defence or professional qualifications without rejoining the European Union. It could also seek to reduce specific administrative barriers affecting British businesses that trade with European partners.
More extensive arrangements could involve closer alignment with certain EU rules or participation in particular European programmes. Depending on the agreement, such choices might bring economic benefits while limiting Britain’s freedom to diverge from shared standards in the relevant areas.
Rejoining the EU would be a much larger step, involving negotiations over membership terms and the UK’s relationship with European institutions. It should not be treated as equivalent to a trade agreement or a limited cooperation deal.
These distinctions are important when assessing claims that a politician is preparing to reverse Brexit. A proposal to improve trade or coordinate defence policy does not, by itself, establish support for EU membership.
For Burnham, as for other British politicians, the details of any proposal would be essential. Voters would need to know which rules Britain might accept, what advantages it would gain and how much freedom it would retain to pursue different policies.
Without those details, arguments about surrendering sovereignty or allowing Europe to exploit Britain risk obscuring the actual decisions under discussion.
Why critics are raising the alarm
Opponents of closer European integration argue that Britain must protect the independence it gained by leaving the EU.
Their concerns often focus on the possibility that regulatory alignment could make it harder for the UK to pursue different standards or negotiate trade arrangements with other countries. They also argue that British governments should remain accountable to Parliament and British voters rather than accepting decisions made through European institutions.
Some Brexit supporters fear that political leaders could gradually reverse the referendum’s outcome through a series of agreements without explicitly asking voters whether they want to rejoin the bloc.
This concern has helped make the language of betrayal a recurring feature of political debate. For those who regard Brexit as a defining democratic decision, any perceived attempt to undo it can provoke strong opposition.
However, closer cooperation does not automatically mean the EU would gain control over British policy. The consequences would depend on the terms of the agreement, the obligations accepted by the UK and the mechanisms used to resolve disagreements.
A serious assessment should therefore distinguish between specific proposals and broader fears about where closer ties might eventually lead.
The economic argument for better relations with Europe
Supporters of closer ties point to the importance of the EU as a trading partner. European markets remain significant for British manufacturers, agricultural producers, financial services and many smaller businesses.
When trade involves additional paperwork, regulatory checks or delays, companies may face higher costs. Large businesses can sometimes absorb these expenses more easily than smaller firms, which may lack the staff and resources needed to manage complex procedures.
Reducing unnecessary barriers could help some businesses sell goods and services more efficiently. Greater cooperation could also make it easier for researchers, universities and companies to participate in joint projects.
The potential benefits, however, should not be exaggerated. The effect of any agreement would vary across industries, and closer alignment could create new obligations or restrict the UK’s ability to adopt different rules.
Trade agreements also involve negotiation. The EU has its own economic interests and is unlikely to accept every British proposal without conditions.
Consequently, a closer relationship would require a careful calculation of costs and benefits rather than an assumption that either full separation or extensive integration automatically produces the best outcome.
Could closer ties undermine British sovereignty?
Sovereignty is at the centre of the Brexit debate, but it can mean different things to different people.
For some, sovereignty means the legal ability to make rules independently, even when doing so creates additional costs. From this perspective, Britain should avoid commitments that prevent future governments from changing regulations.
Others argue that formal independence is not the only consideration. A country may retain legal authority over its decisions while finding that limited cooperation gives it greater practical influence over issues that cross national borders.
For example, countries may cooperate on energy security, defence, scientific research or environmental standards because the relevant challenges cannot be addressed effectively by one government acting alone.
The key question is how much discretion Britain would retain under a particular arrangement and whether the benefits justified the obligations involved.
Any agreement would need to be assessed on its own terms. Some forms of cooperation might involve few constraints, while others could require Britain to maintain common rules or accept formal dispute-resolution arrangements.
That is why a blanket claim that every closer relationship would amount to surrendering sovereignty is too broad. Equally, it would be misleading to suggest that deeper integration could never restrict Britain’s freedom of action.
The practical details matter more than the slogans.
What would this mean for Andy Burnham?
Burnham’s position in the Brexit debate could become politically significant if he were to advocate a more extensive reset in relations with the EU.
As a senior Labour figure and Greater Manchester mayor, he has a public platform from which to discuss economic development, investment and the interests of businesses and communities outside London.
However, a politician’s general support for European cooperation should not automatically be interpreted as a commitment to reverse Brexit. The specific proposals and public statements involved would need to be examined before drawing conclusions about his position.
If Burnham were to support closer economic arrangements, critics could question whether those arrangements risked compromising the independence Britain secured through Brexit. Supporters might respond that improving trade and cooperation could help British businesses and workers without requiring a return to EU membership.
Such disagreements would place the focus on practical questions: Would the proposal reduce costs? Would it create new obligations? Would Parliament retain meaningful oversight? What safeguards would protect British interests if disagreements arose?
These are questions that deserve direct answers rather than assumptions about political motives.
Burnham would also have to consider the broader Labour debate. Some voters who supported Brexit may be concerned about any move towards European integration, while others may favour stronger economic cooperation if it improves living standards.
A credible position would need to acknowledge those different perspectives and explain how the proposed arrangements would work.
Labour’s difficult balancing act
Labour faces a challenge shared by several British political parties: how to improve the UK’s relationship with its European neighbours without reopening every division created by the referendum.
Closer cooperation could offer practical advantages in areas such as trade, security and research. At the same time, a policy perceived as ignoring the referendum result could provoke a strong political backlash.
The party therefore has incentives to distinguish between improving the existing relationship and pursuing EU membership.
That distinction does not eliminate disagreement. Even a limited agreement may require Britain to accept conditions that critics dislike, while supporters may argue that the economic benefits justify those conditions.
The political debate will depend partly on whether proposed changes produce visible results. If businesses experience lower costs or improved access to markets, supporters may argue that cooperation is delivering practical value. If agreements create significant obligations without clear benefits, opponents will have grounds to question the approach.
Public trust will also depend on transparency. Voters are more likely to understand the choices involved when politicians explain what an agreement would change, what it would cost and what safeguards would apply.
The danger of turning policy into a battle of slogans
Terms such as ‘betrayal’ and ‘plunder’ can attract attention, but they do not establish whether a particular policy would benefit or harm Britain.
The EU is not a single actor pursuing only one interest, and Britain is not automatically disadvantaged by every agreement it signs. Both sides negotiate according to their own economic and political priorities.
A proposed deal could benefit some industries more than others. It could reduce one type of trade barrier while creating new obligations in another area. Its overall effect would depend on the details and how businesses and governments responded.
That complexity does not mean voters should ignore the risks. On the contrary, it makes scrutiny more important.
Politicians advocating closer ties should explain the expected benefits and acknowledge the limitations. Those opposing such agreements should identify the specific costs and risks rather than relying solely on claims that Britain would be exploited.
An informed debate would allow voters to judge proposals according to evidence, democratic accountability and their likely effect on the country.
Britain’s future relationship with Europe remains unresolved
The argument surrounding Burnham illustrates how Brexit continues to shape British politics. The referendum settled the immediate question of EU membership, but it did not permanently resolve how closely Britain should cooperate with its neighbours.
Future governments will continue to face decisions about trade, defence, energy, migration and regulatory policy. Each decision will involve a balance between economic opportunity, national autonomy and the practical advantages of working with other countries.
For Brexit supporters, the central test is whether Britain retains meaningful control over its own laws and policies. For advocates of closer relations, the test is whether cooperation can improve economic performance and strengthen security without requiring full membership.
Those positions cannot be reconciled through slogans alone. They require clear proposals and honest explanations of the compromises involved.
If Andy Burnham advocates a closer relationship with Europe, the details of his position will matter far more than the dramatic language used by his critics. Voters will need to determine whether the proposed changes respect Britain’s democratic choices and deliver tangible benefits.
The question is not simply whether Britain should move closer to or further away from the European Union. It is which arrangements best serve the country’s interests, what obligations they create and how those decisions should be scrutinised.
The Brexit debate is far from finished. But its next chapter should be shaped by evidence, accountability and clearly defined choices rather than the assumption that every compromise is a betrayal or every European agreement is automatically beneficial.